Mass shooting at Oregon college: 15+ dead...

Page 9 of 14 [ 219 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 14  Next

neilson_wheels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,404
Location: London, Capital of the Un-United Kingdom

07 Oct 2015, 8:29 am

Dox47 wrote:
James Holmes jammed his AR15 almost immediately during the Aurora shooting and had to transition to another weapon.


I'm following the thread and just wanted to highlight that this is not correct. He was using a 100 round drum magazine and fired 65 shots before the gun jammed.

Wikipedia:
Quote:
Holmes fired 76 shots in the theater: six from the shotgun, 65 from the semi-automatic rifle, and five from the .40-caliber handgun.


Original source: LINK



glebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2015
Age: 62
Posts: 1,665
Location: Mountains of Southern California

07 Oct 2015, 10:49 am

cyberdad said" Honestly, there is no good argument for gun ownership". I find it strange that when I have posted on several threads dealing with this subject my circumstances, the anti-gunners never reply. So, here we go again.

I live in an area surrounded by wilderness. I have some guns for protection from wildlife. Said wildlife include bears, mountain lions, and rattlesnakes; all of which are dangerous not only to my animals but also to me. I have had to put a shot across the bows of one bear, and I have had to shoot one monstrous rattlesnake because they were threats. And yet you people say that guns are inherently evil and have no place in our society. And I can't be the only one who lives in these situations.

So maybe you people should stop looking for an easy fix to your violence problems and correct your screwed up neighbors. Oh, that's right, that would require effort on your part!


_________________
When everyone is losing their heads except you, maybe you don't understand the situation.


Peejay
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 301
Location: UK

07 Oct 2015, 11:40 am

Dox47 wrote:
Peejay, I'm going to try and get back to you on this stuff, I'm kinda busy with work at the moment, but I've got to tell you, I'm trying really hard to bring more light than heat to this argument, if you know what I mean, and condescending comments regarding why people like me might believe what me do are making that much more difficult. I have a degree from one of the two colleges in the country that have full time gunsmithing programs, I've got over a decade of personal experience with firearms, and I guarantee more personally conducted research than anyone commenting here, so please spare me any comparisons to religion, my beliefs are solidly constructed on facts and experience, unlike the many posters here who haven't even shot a gun, let alone carried one daily.

Here's some quick food for thought before I have to go:

Image


Genuinely no intention to sound condescending Dox, just my writing style i suppose. Me too trying to generate light not heat.
The comparison to religion was just my attempt to say that people really believe in this on an almost visceral level... no offense intended,



Last edited by Peejay on 07 Oct 2015, 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Oct 2015, 11:42 am

0regonGuy wrote:
Oregon shooter's father: Gun laws have to change




He's trimming his sails to appear sympathetic. There could be a civil suit coming his way and it'll look good to go on record like he's doing.

I don’t see the grounds for a civil suit against the parents since the shooter was 26 but kookier things have happened with civil law and he probably knows it.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Oct 2015, 11:52 am

cyberdad wrote:
Peejay wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Peejay wrote:
OK Dox47 I understand what you are saying more clearly and I think you do have a good argument in many ways.
However 340 million guns in the US is sure a lot of guns don`t you think?


ummm they don't have a good argument. Stick with information at hand - 340 million guns floating around in a population of 320 million. Read this recent article about what this easy access to guns leads to;
http://www.news.com.au/world/mckayla-dy ... 7558669097


You are correct but I wasn`t saying I agreed with the argument, but I do respect the sincerity behind the reasoning. Many of the arguments have valid points within even if we disagree about the end causes & effects.

The roots and branches of this are so complicated and convoluted that ultimately one has to follow ones belief and try to persuade.
I suppose in some ways it feels a bit like a debate about religion, as I can see that there is something about this issue which goes right to the core of some of the pro gun contributors belief systems. I also have learned that this seems to be a sincere and particularly American belief system (I will stand corrected here) and people can take it very personally if this is criticised.
All the stats in the world wont convince unless the person is prepared to be open to persuasion.

However I think there has to be a tipping point as this killing cannot go on... surely?


Honestly there is no good argument for gun ownership. About the only argument the NRA folks regularly fall back on (when the chips are down) is that guns make you safer.
Perhaps in Hollywood movies?

Q. Does carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
According to FBI website in 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Q. DO guns make women safer.
In 2010 according to the FBI, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

When you take away the one crutch the NRA rely on then their entire premise is phoney. It's much like what Kraichgauer posted on the thread about guns/crime that that a significant proportion of gun owners are secretly enamored/aroused by the idea of killing things (if not defenseless animals then blowing up bottles on fenceposts or clay pigeons) with high projectile weapons that they control in the palm of their hands.


A gun doesnt make anyone "safer" it gives them a tool that can be used in thier defense that they wouldn't have otherwise. Like any other tool, it's only as good as the user.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


timtowdi
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 59

07 Oct 2015, 10:34 pm

glebel wrote:
cyberdad said" Honestly, there is no good argument for gun ownership". I find it strange that when I have posted on several threads dealing with this subject my circumstances, the anti-gunners never reply. So, here we go again.

I live in an area surrounded by wilderness. I have some guns for protection from wildlife. Said wildlife include bears, mountain lions, and rattlesnakes; all of which are dangerous not only to my animals but also to me. I have had to put a shot across the bows of one bear, and I have had to shoot one monstrous rattlesnake because they were threats. And yet you people say that guns are inherently evil and have no place in our society. And I can't be the only one who lives in these situations.

So maybe you people should stop looking for an easy fix to your violence problems and correct your screwed up neighbors. Oh, that's right, that would require effort on your part!


According to the Census, about 15% of US residents live in rural areas now. That means 85% of us do not have to worry about bears and rattlesnakes, because we've destroyed their habitats to make our own. Very few of us rely on hunting anymore for food, either. So yes, there are others like you. Just not very many. What that means is that if you want to go on protecting yourself from critters with guns, you should probably be working with others for sensible and responsible gun laws that do not allow people to build home arsenals, buy without the sort of licensures and tests we require of drivers, keep guns without regular relicensure, etc. Like it or not, this is your problem too.



timtowdi
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 59

07 Oct 2015, 10:39 pm

Peejay wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Peejay, I'm going to try and get back to you on this stuff, I'm kinda busy with work at the moment, but I've got to tell you, I'm trying really hard to bring more light than heat to this argument, if you know what I mean, and condescending comments regarding why people like me might believe what me do are making that much more difficult. I have a degree from one of the two colleges in the country that have full time gunsmithing programs, I've got over a decade of personal experience with firearms, and I guarantee more personally conducted research than anyone commenting here, so please spare me any comparisons to religion, my beliefs are solidly constructed on facts and experience, unlike the many posters here who haven't even shot a gun, let alone carried one daily.

Here's some quick food for thought before I have to go:

Image


Genuinely no intention to sound condescending Dox, just my writing style i suppose. Me too trying to generate light not heat.
The comparison to religion was just my attempt to say that people really believe in this on an almost visceral level... no offense intended,


This truth about guns would be a lot less truthy if it counted gun deaths, rather than gun homicides, and included the rest of the world's stats for context. And had more than four points on it. Crime of all kinds is down tremendously since 1993, incidentally, and no one really knows why. One of the stranger arguments comes from the freakonomics people, who say that it corresponds to Roe v. Wade and the supposition that a lot of unwanted babies were not born after 1973, and therefore did not grow up neglected and at-risk, removing a lot of potential criminals from the population.



CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,666
Location: Stalag 13

07 Oct 2015, 11:37 pm

My thoughts and prayers are with everyone in Oregon, especially the ones on WP.


_________________
Who wants to adopt a Sweet Pea?


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

08 Oct 2015, 12:35 am

neilson_wheels wrote:
I'm following the thread and just wanted to highlight that this is not correct. He was using a 100 round drum magazine and fired 65 shots before the gun jammed.


Thank you, I was going from memory on that, and for some reason I had it in my mind that he jammed it sooner. Having worked a few machinegun shoots, I'm not particularly impressed with drum magazines, or really oversize magazines generally, and have seen a lot more jams out of them than conventional feeding devices.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

08 Oct 2015, 12:39 am

timtowdi wrote:
This truth about guns would be a lot less truthy if it counted gun deaths, rather than gun homicides, and included the rest of the world's stats for context. And had more than four points on it.


That sounds an awful lot like a selective demand for rigor to me; are you also going to scrutinize all the anti-gun graphs and studies quoted in this thread to a similar degree?

timtowdi wrote:
Crime of all kinds is down tremendously since 1993, incidentally, and no one really knows why. One of the stranger arguments comes from the freakonomics people, who say that it corresponds to Roe v. Wade and the supposition that a lot of unwanted babies were not born after 1973, and therefore did not grow up neglected and at-risk, removing a lot of potential criminals from the population.


That's very true, but one thing that has changed since 93 is that there are a lot more guns in circulation, and carry laws have gotten a lot more relaxed. Now, I'm not going John Lott and claiming that one had anything to do with the other, what I am doing is claiming a negative correlation, i.e. that more guns with looser restrictions did not cause the crime spree that the anti-gun side predicted, that crime in fact plummeted during this period.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

08 Oct 2015, 12:41 am

timtowdi wrote:
What that means is that if you want to go on protecting yourself from critters with guns, you should probably be working with others for sensible and responsible gun laws that do not allow people to build home arsenals, buy without the sort of licensures and tests we require of drivers, keep guns without regular relicensure, etc. Like it or not, this is your problem too.


Actually, as you're the one who is proposing gun control, i.e. restrictions on the rights of others, the ball is in your court to prove that whatever laws you're pushing will actually do anything beyond appealing to liberal sensibilities.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


glebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2015
Age: 62
Posts: 1,665
Location: Mountains of Southern California

08 Oct 2015, 11:03 am

timtowdi wrote:
glebel wrote:
cyberdad said" Honestly, there is no good argument for gun ownership". I find it strange that when I have posted on several threads dealing with this subject my circumstances, the anti-gunners never reply. So, here we go again.

I live in an area surrounded by wilderness. I have some guns for protection from wildlife. Said wildlife include bears, mountain lions, and rattlesnakes; all of which are dangerous not only to my animals but also to me. I have had to put a shot across the bows of one bear, and I have had to shoot one monstrous rattlesnake because they were threats. And yet you people say that guns are inherently evil and have no place in our society. And I can't be the only one who lives in these situations.

So maybe you people should stop looking for an easy fix to your violence problems and correct your screwed up neighbors. Oh, that's right, that would require effort on your part!


According to the Census, about 15% of US residents live in rural areas now. That means 85% of us do not have to worry about bears and rattlesnakes, because we've destroyed their habitats to make our own. Very few of us rely on hunting anymore for food, either. So yes, there are others like you. Just not very many. What that means is that if you want to go on protecting yourself from critters with guns, you should probably be working with others for sensible and responsible gun laws that do not allow people to build home arsenals, buy without the sort of licensures and tests we require of drivers, keep guns without regular relicensure, etc. Like it or not, this is your problem too.

Well, one of you finally responded.
The problem with your theory that I should support gun control is that:
A) There are powerful people who want the complete abolition of privately owned guns and who will not settle for less, and,
B) As any country person will tell you, we suffer under the tyranny of you urban people. You vote for propositions and your representatives pass laws which effect us negatively, but because they sound good in theory to you city folk, we are penalized. For example, in the state of California, you can only buy windshield washer fluid that contains an anti-freeze additive in counties that are partially in the Sierra Nevadas, but this doesn't include all the counties that have territory in the mountains ( you can buy it in Fresno, but you can't buy it in Bakersfield). I live in Ventura County, were apparently it doesn't snow. That white stuff on the ground every winter must be fallout from the Fukushima disaster. So I end up putting regular anti-freeze in my fluid to prevent freezing, which is probably worse then the stuff formulated by professionals. Maybe I should take the bus. Oh wait, there is no bus.
Finally, the root cause of these problems is still not guns, it is people.


_________________
When everyone is losing their heads except you, maybe you don't understand the situation.


Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

08 Oct 2015, 11:13 am

Hey glebel, who are the people that want to ban all guns in the U.S.? I have never heard ANY proposals to do anything close to this. I think the closest I've ever heard from someone in a position of power is Senator Feinstein and she's never proposed anything like that in the senate. I can kind of understand her statement as she was there when Harvey Milk was assassinated.



glebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2015
Age: 62
Posts: 1,665
Location: Mountains of Southern California

08 Oct 2015, 11:21 am

Lukeda420 wrote:
Hey glebel, who are the people that want to ban all guns in the U.S.? I have never heard ANY proposals to do anything close to this. I think the closest I've ever heard from someone in a position of power is Senator Feinstein and she's never proposed anything like that in the senate. I can kind of understand her statement as she was there when Harvey Milk was assassinated.

George Soros, the ex-Nazi who funds so many 'liberal' causes and organizations for starters, such as the Violence Policy Center. He imported a woman who was instrumental in imposing Australia's draconian gun laws to do the same here. Nothing succeeds like success.
When we have to go to the government to ask permission for anything that is allowed under the Constitution, this is the beginning of dictatorial rule. I can see where a person could go to the government, a person with a legitimate need for, and a legal right to have a firearm, and the government would say "No, we don't think you need it".
And still, what needs to happen is for society to clean up it's act, and not go running to the government for all solutions to every problem, real or imagined.


_________________
When everyone is losing their heads except you, maybe you don't understand the situation.


Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

08 Oct 2015, 11:35 am

I don't know exactly what his view is but for the discussion I'll take your word for it. That's just one person and he's just a rich activist. Bill gates once said he wanted to find a way to control hurricanes to prevent them from hitting land. It doesn't mean it's going to happen or even possible.



timtowdi
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 59

08 Oct 2015, 11:57 pm

glebel wrote:
Lukeda420 wrote:
Hey glebel, who are the people that want to ban all guns in the U.S.? I have never heard ANY proposals to do anything close to this. I think the closest I've ever heard from someone in a position of power is Senator Feinstein and she's never proposed anything like that in the senate. I can kind of understand her statement as she was there when Harvey Milk was assassinated.

George Soros, the ex-Nazi who funds so many 'liberal' causes and organizations for starters, such as the Violence Policy Center. He imported a woman who was instrumental in imposing Australia's draconian gun laws to do the same here. Nothing succeeds like success.
When we have to go to the government to ask permission for anything that is allowed under the Constitution, this is the beginning of dictatorial rule. I can see where a person could go to the government, a person with a legitimate need for, and a legal right to have a firearm, and the government would say "No, we don't think you need it".
And still, what needs to happen is for society to clean up it's act, and not go running to the government for all solutions to every problem, real or imagined.


Okay, I was sympathetic to the "rural and have gun to protect myself from animals" argument, but this is just paranoid ranting. Soros is a Hungarian Jew who was a kid when the Nazis rolled in. He was not a Nazi. I had to look up what you were saying to see where this craziness is coming from, and am not surprised to find it's Ann Coulter. And no, there are not people trying to pry all your guns from your cold, dead hands. There are tens, maybe hundreds of millions of people now who have had enough of the unchecked gun lunacy that's turned the whole country into a dangerous place. I think even the people who want to see stronger gun control understand rural self-protection from animals, hunting, and sport shooting. You just don't need military equipment for those. Very unexciting rifles used to kill deer just fine when I was a kid.

As for the wiper fluid: your county has some pretty densely-populated areas where the ordinance makes sense. There are things I don't like about my county ordinances, either, but I understand that for the majority of the population, they make sense and do good things. Instead of trying to doctor your wiper fluid, you should probably just drive to a county where you can get the stuff you need, get several gallons of it, and be set for years. I think rural America has bigger worries than that, mostly to do with nearby-metropolitan views on infrastructure, zoning, and natural resources.